As title, if you have post or link any useful resource you have
War is horrific. If we deem a military is necessary to a peaceful society to protect from threats both domestic and foreign, then we should have a draft of ALL able adults, not just the poor and underprivileged. Rich folks, political folks, and otherwise connected individuals should be subject to be put on the front lines right next to the rest of us. What that means is we might rethink, as a nation, any military action. An all volunteer military would be the next most preferable one that is paid equal or greater to the national average income with full lifetime benefits including healthcare for the whole body including mind, teeth, eyes, etc., pension, free education including masters and doctorate level education, housing, as well as meeting other basic needs of life.
Anything less than that should be unacceptable.
Show them some videos of people getting blown up by FPV drones. If that doesn’t get them to think, nothing will.
Whether it’s a good thing or not depends entirely on your philosophical views. There is no objectively correct answer, and which arguments may convince someone very much depends on the values and perspectives of the person you are trying to convince.
How do you make someone realize that their philosophical views are bad then?
That’s not how it works. It isn’t your way or the highway
You can’t force someone to believe something
First you set up a news agency. You tune into their fear of inadequacy. You craft stories and spin truths to Make sure that they’re good and scared of the future of them and their family. You keep slowly chipping away until they have no problem with suspension of disbelief. You make sure that day and their friends all have the right tools to indoctrinate each other. Then you get small and big business on board by offering them tons of money to help keep everybody good and scared. You craft laws and put people in the right places in police organizations to make sure that the people you’re trying to scare them with are seen as the Boogeyman. Sure, it’s not technically forcing but it’s forcing…
How could one convince you that your philosophical views are bad?
Perhaps by bringing up resources that prove my philosophical views bad
What kind of resources are we talking about here? Clearly it doesn’t help to make you talk to 1 person that holds contrasting views, as that seems to be your starting point. A study of 1000? A study of 100000? An empirical research over 100 years? 500? A meta analysis? 5 people talking to you about it? 10? 100?
So have you tried that with the people who agree with the draft? Did you find it was convincing to them?
deleted by creator
Is every alternative preferable to war? For example, should Ukraine have agreed to become part of Russia to avoid war?
Quite a few nations capitulated against the Nazis within days or even without a fight to avoid war. It saved a lot of lives. Does that make it the right choice? Who is to say…
What’s for sure is that Boris shouldn’t have vetoed the peace agreement in 2022.
I didn’t think it saved lives, since it empowered the Nazis to kill more people. So I say no it wasn’t the right choice.
Look it’s hard to say if it saved lives in the overall ww2 tally, but surrender to save lives was the rationale of the Generals eg in The Netherlands. They looked at what the Luftwaffe had done to Rotterdam, looked at what weapons they had themselves, considered the prospect of what was going to happen to Utrecht next, and decided that further resistance was futile. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II#German_occupation
So if you have an immoveable stance against war, isn’t it just as likely someone out there believes they have a similarly immovable stance in favor of the draft?
deleted by creator
Uh, just to be clear, I’m not actually trying to sway you. Just pointing out to OP, and to you I guess since you’re engaging, that when someone holds an “immoveable stance” as they themselves say, and aren’t open to changing their views, it is highly unlikely one can convince them to change. Like, someone could up to you and say you’re wrong and evil for your views but that probably isn’t going to convince you, right?
We don’t have a way to do this. I don’t think we ever will. Wish the answer was different.
The one thing I will say is that logical argument is extremely ineffective for changing people’s views. Personal, emotional stories are best. The issue is that war and the draft is already highly emotionally charged, so it’s gonna be hard to find something that will strike a nerve with someone who hasn’t already come around on it.
Classically, you’d discuss their views with them and find the logical conclusions. Then you’d talk though if those ideas contradict with other ideas they hold. That sort of discussion/dialogue is basically all of Plato.
You can’t make a person understand anything. If the very simple explanation of “draft the unwilling and send them to die” doesn’t convince them, they don’t want to be convinced. I couldn’t name a single person who thinks that’s good, just maybe some folks who would say it’s sometimes a grim necessity. And I guess I’m in the latter camp, but shit would have to be dire.
Yeah like somebody else said, you’d have to challenge their philosophical believes that leads them to hold this opinion first.
And that in turn requires argueing them from a position not based on “I disagree, and my opinion is the correct one”, but on philosophical, logical and argumentative flaws in their believe system. Which is not easy to do. At all. It’s in fact very hard, made harder by the fact that our brains can see information, actively realize this information is correct and contradicts something we thought of earlier, and yet also discard said information and stick to the existing mental model instead. Meaning that even if you do everything correct, they might go “Yes, that’s true” and then nothing happens, out of no ill will.
I mean you can look at Russia as an example for how much of the economy was hurt by forcing people out of normal occupation and into service. You also have too look at their abysmal attrition rate to see its unsubstainable and if used primarily leads to worse and worse outcomes on the battle field as they less and less qualified personnel.
Appealing to morality is probably a lost cause for someone supporting a draft, they have already bought into war as a solution. Like moral arguments that Russia is choosing to sacrifice millions and set back their region is something they are already choosing to ignore, forcing people to do it minor in comparison.
Really telling all the radlibs are suddenly pro-draft. Always proimperialist, that bunch. I wonder why they arent in the boots themselves.
On a related note, if the US continues on its current trajectory, I predict the draft to return within the next eight years. The Selective Service System never went away. Look what congress is up to right now: Lawmakers move to automate Selective Service registration for all men
The automation is because it’s always been a felony not to register, same as it is in virtually every country with mandatory service, so to avoid the horrifically needless societal effects that come from giving someone a felony for a random crime, they simply automated it.
Basically what they did with social security years ago. Used to also be a crime to not sign up by a certain age, so they just started immediately registering all children at birth.
Wait, selective service wasn’t automated? When I turned 18 my card just showed up in the mail. I didn’t have to do anything to get it.
Not that I was ever interested in being military, but I was at a lunch with two older lifelong army retirees. They kept talking about how military service broke their bodies and politicians won’t cover their medical costs. These injuries were independent of any combat: It’s just expected that you sell every part of yourself when you sign up.
Who wants to be 45 years old with a limp, be unable to hear a quiet conversation, and have horrible back problems?
I don’t know a single person who was in the military who has good things to say about it.
After training, sure, they’re all for it. After doing the job for real (combat or not) and getting out, not a single time that I can remember.
The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you’ve asked here doesn’t match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to “defend themselves”.
There’s a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.
- This invasion was not a choice between war or no war. It was simply a decision between locations that battles take place. It is entirely legitimate for Ukraine to pursue a counteroffensive strategy into russian territory if it believes it to be a more effective military strategy than defensive attritional warfare within their own borders.
- The fact that combat is taking place in Russian territory doesn’t change the fact that the war itself is a defensive war against an aggressor with overtly territorial/imperialist goals.
- As far as I am aware, the units involved in the counteroffensive are exclusively non-drafted volunteer units.
- Cessation of funding to Ukraine would lead to their imminent loss. The fact that they have been able to innovate cheaper strategies like domestic drone usage doesn’t change the fact that war is extremely expensive and technology dependent, and their economy is dwarfed by that of Russia’s.
The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.
From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”
The question asked in the thread title is really simple and you should try to stay on topic.
The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad.
You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine
You are twisting what i’ve said. I encourage you to read other people post better because i never made such claim.
From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”
If you believe that not being drafted by force and ordered to invade another country is the equivalent of rolling over and dying you are probably victim of the propaganda. As other have suggested here i advise you to watch drones videos from this war where they roll over and die
Let’s go look at your comment history and check, shall we?
Defending yourself and launching invasions or orchestrating soldiers are two different things
It’s not defending yourself if you have an army! What a great take 👍
it sounds like the government is giving out plans and commanding the army. The government of ukraine and people from ukraine are two different things. When people ask what’s the alternative to send billions to the ukrainian government what they need to understand is that people can defend themself even without an authority on top of them playing war games with soldiers and possibly forcing conscript to go on missions
Oh, why did Ukraine never consider magically winning the war by sheer willpower instead of this “having an army” nonsense, smart!
I’m not twisting anything. Context matters, and the context of your post was you throwing a tantrum after around 10 different Lemmy users calling out your bad takes.
If you believe not being drafted blah blah blah
That’s not what I said at all, mere moments after you accused me of “twisting” what you said. What I said, louder for the people in the back is BEING UNABLE TO FIGHT BACK IN THE ENEMY’S TERRITORY, BEING DISALLOWED TO RECEIVE FOREIGN AID AND BEING DISALLOWED TO FORM AN ACTUAL ARMY is the equivalent of rolling over and dying.
deleted by creator
The “invasion” of Russia isn’t an invasion though. They have no desire (and no capability) to actually take land.
Russia propaganda be saying the same thing, for them it’s a “special operation” and not an invasion. The conversation you are replying to makes reference to another thread in which “orders to invade russia” were mentioned.
Or course drafting is controversial but it’s much less so when the purpose is to protect your country and home compared to what Russia is doing with their drafts where the only purpose is to kill and invade Ukraine.
So let me ask you something: if you were born in russia and kazakistan declares war to russia would you be fine with you and your friends be drafted by force and sent to the front fighting under the command of putin and its mobsters? Perhaps not everyone is willing to die burned alive in a trench, be it for the russian or ukrainian government.
If Russia surrendered with reasonable terms, Ukraine would obviously exit Russia. They have no desire to keep it.
Ukrainian people perhaps no. Worldwide governments seem to have an interest in this war because they are doing everything to fuel it.
deleted by creator
The government of ukraine and its politicians don’t seem too different from these or russia, germany, france, italy or usa. In all these countries climate activists gets beaten and civil protests get repressed. All these countries support israel in its genocide and sell weapons to saudi arabia. In a way or another they are all tyrannical and not worth die burned alive in a trench for.
deleted by creator
Really? You really think that Russian politicians (aka Putin since Russia isn’t a democracy) are comparable to western nations?
Yes don’t you?
former pm of italy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi
former pm of usa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
Russia is one of the worst places to live in when it comes to rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of press.
I would say saudi arabia it’s worst
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States–Saudi_Arabia_arms_deal
Worldwide governments seem to have an interest in this war because they are doing everything to fuel it.
Bingo. This nullifies your credibility. Either you’re a troll or an idiot.
Bingo. This nullifies your credibility. Either you’re a troll or an idiot.
That’s simply what is happening look around you. Rulers and politicians profits in war, the military industry is booming, the cash is flowing. You think the really same people aiding israel in its genocide gives a fuck about peasants dying in a war?
Companies mentioned in an article you linked aren’t getting the cash flow enough to warrant any improvement in related economies. I see Russian politicians profiting off various things during war but they were doing the same before.
So, short effects of the war on economies are not worth the long term effects of deaths of many consumers anywhere. Using the “war helps economy” argument while forgetting how the deaths and active aggression affect the world and lives, is a manipulation, which is also heavily used by those aggressors (Russia).
Telling Israel is doing a genocide without mentioning what hamas were doing to Israel is also a manipulation.
Being drafted (which is forced labour where you additionally have a high chance of being killed or wounded) is always not okay, not just when it is done to invade another country.
OP, nobody in that thread yesterday was saying it was a good thing. When a country gets invaded, your responses are always going to be a matter of lesser evils. Apologies for Godwin’s-Law-ing this off the bat, but it wasn’t great that the Allies drafted hundreds of thousands of people and invaded Nazi Germany. It was still better than every other option.
Godwin’s law itself always confused me. Of course comparisons with nazi Germany are overused, but it’s literally only 80 years ago. The fact that it could happen such a short time ago means that many of the same dangers, same lessons learned are very likely still completely applicable today. The human behaviors that led to Nazi Germany are still there, in/outgroup thinking, fear of foreigners/others, etc etc etc
So yeah I don’t think “Godwin’s law” existing as a concept should stop valid comparisons.
It doesn’t! It’s just a comment on how overused the comparisons are on the internet. To quote Godwin himself:
Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.
The founding fathers thought that standing armies make any leader a tyrant.
You start by giving up on making them understand.
I’m not part of the typical group that gets drafted (presumably young men) but my argument has always been that my country doesn’t own me, I’m not its property. If I want to fight for/serve my country I will, but IMO it has no right to just use me at will like a resource.
This especially goes for times like these, when everything is unaffordable, nobody can get a house, you can barely see a doctor, the police don’t even bother solving most low-level crime and the rich are lining their pockets with our money. The system is not upholding its end of the social contract at all, so why should it expect any extraordinary measures from us?
The 13th amendment protects us from forced labor. No matter what the supreme court might bring up bullshit about how other countries do it.
Hey Dipshit’s, maybe needless wars wouldn’t start if it wasn’t fucking possible to force people to fight in them.
Unless as punishment.
Personally, I’ve come to the conclusion that anyone who has the capacity and wisdom to know why wars are waged in the first place would never voluntarily fight in one.
It’s reinforced my philosophical idea that wars are just a way for humanity to purge the worst of itself.
Eh. Overseas? Definitely not. If my home is invaded? You bet your ass I’m fighting the invaders.
